From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-21 14:16:33
On 1/19/04 9:36 AM, "Daniel Wallin" <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daryle Walker wrote:
>> If you want a pointer whose "const" state matches that of the pointer-to
>> object, you can make you own smart pointer for it. Just like using an
>> "auto_ptr" as a class member to prevent forgetting of pointer-based deletion,
>> this new smart pointer will allow a pointed-to (owned) object to have the
>> same "const"-ness of the current member function, instead of having no
>> qualifications (and be changed if the programmer accidentally uses the object
>> in a non-const manner). Post it to Boost for inclusion when you're done!
>
> FWIW, that is exactly what I did and what this thread was about from the
> start. ;)
Was it something like:
template < typename T >
class const_matching_ptr
: private boost::noncopyable
{
public:
explicit const_matching_ptr( T &x ) : x_( &x ) {}
T * get() { return this->x_; }
T const * get() const { return this->x_; }
T volatile * get() volatile { return this->x_; }
T const volatile * get() const volatile { return this->x_; }
// Don't forget to do all the qualification combinations!
// (Should we add const/volatile qualifications as a new
// kind of template parameter? Look at how similar the
// "get" methods were. This will get worse if we use
// C-1999's "restrict".)
T * operator ->();
T & operator *();
T & operator []( std::size_t i );
private:
T * x_;
};
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com